Reconstructing non-standard languages provides a unique approach on the role of Russian language contact in the emergence of sociolectal varieties. According to the authors, this volume ‘arose out of an investigation into how Odessan Russian was spoken in the time when it was robustly spoken’ (xii). The project was later expanded to encompass ‘other non-standard varieties of Russian’ (xii).

Part 1 features three introductory chapters on theory and methodology versing the reader on sociohistorical linguistics and language contact, the so-called ‘Russian language empire’, and the sociolinguistic tracking of contact effects, with the reconstruction of linguistic effects of language contact and social contexts of usage eventually becoming the centrepiece. Zooming in on the prior preparatory contents, Part 2 comprises two chapters—respectively, on language contact and Odessan Russian among lesser studied Russian pidgins. Part 3 approaches the issue of written representation of the varieties under study, with an emphasis on the role of literature as a potential source of (socio)linguistic evidence.

In Part 1, chapter 1—though introductory in nature—swiftly progresses into the analysis of ‘the [relevant] ethnolinguistic repertoire and the standard language in the Russian context’ (16–17), based on the case studies of Odessan Russian (19) and Russian-based pidgins (20). Chapter 2 provides a sociolinguistic overview of the ‘Russian language empire’, specifically focusing on standard Russian and its presence in literacy (31–39), as opposed to the East Slavic language-dialect continuum (43). Also highlighted are the features of Surzhyk (56–60) and Trasjanka (61–62), whose affiliations remain subject to debate. Chapter 3 reviews the prominent concepts and approaches on sociolinguistic reconstruction of contact effects, including—and ultimately focusing on—the emergence of language shift, diglossia, and ‘fluent dysfluency’ in Odessan Russian. A relevant takeaway from Part 1 is found in the idea that certain inconsistencies in documentation are attributable to variation.

From a reconstruction perspective, Part 2 further delves into the history, description, and sociolinguistic status and evaluation of Odessan Russian (chapter 4), as well as the Russian pidgins (i.e. Russenorsk, Chinese-Russian borderland varieties, Kyakhta, Ussuri; chapter 5). Part 3 approaches representation issues in written documentation, ultimately highlighting the caveats of extracting linguistic evidence and analysis material from literature (chapter 6), as reconstruction best practices are reviewed in the light of indexicality and authenticity (chapter 7). Odessan Russian and the literary variety of Ussuri pidgin Russian become the focus in and by themselves, with English occasionally being used to provide a comparative baseline. Chapter 7 features valuable concluding remarks in the form of ‘lessons for documentation and reconstruction’, as applied to Odessan Russian and Russian-lexifier pidgins used in Northern Norway and the Russian Far East. Such ‘lessons’ eventually draw on the takeaway that ‘[n]o matter how comprehensive, any linguistic grammar is limited [on multiple fronts]’ (313), based on which language documentation efforts can rarely be regarded as a ‘neutral enterprise’. Linguistic reconstruction thus arises as a necessary tool for the creation of ‘future records’ in lesser documented or ‘non-standard’ languages.